So, it should go without saying:
If you're posting in a forum based on the criticism of custom cards, you should be able to take criticism.
Thread closed.
-
- IcariiFA
- Registered User
-
Member for 9 years, 8 months, and 3 days
Last active Mon, Jan, 20 2020 11:38:07
- 1 Follower
- 2,094 Total Posts
- 314 Thanks
-
Jan 28, 20183
void_nothing posted a message on Crescendo [An Innovative Keyword Concept]Posted in: Custom Card Creation -
Jan 27, 20182
Thought Criminal posted a message on Crescendo [An Innovative Keyword Concept]How much longer are you going to stay on your high horse? Your ego is way too large.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
"I know everything there is about my mechanic. All your arguments are 'empty,' 'weak,' 'biased,' or whatever other adjective I want to use to deflect them."
Yet, you can't even answer IcariiFA's rules concerns correctly? Maybe you should take a step back and realize that the criticism against your mechanic means you don't know as much as you think you do. It's more than evident enough that your knowledge of the game's rules is pitifully small, despite the "extensive experience" that you keep on pointing at.
Get your mechanic to work properly first. I don't think you'll be able to on your own. -
Jan 27, 2018
2
Thought Criminal posted a message on Crescendo [An Innovative Keyword Concept]The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do. You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.
Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.
The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.
You might as well just make a different game, rather than pitch ideas for Magic designs. Magic has a bunch of conventions and standards that you're throwing out the window for no reason other than "innovation." By doing so, you're no longer designing for Magic anymore, so of course none of what we say is going to make you budge, since we don't even know what game you are designing for.
Also:
---
Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »As for your "unnecessary duplication" argument, the sacrifice trigger will not duplicate. That operation takes wing as a state-based effect that puts the permanent into the graveyard superseding the stack—with no time-frame beyond this that enables the operating function to trigger an additional time (or trigger in any exponential fashion).
This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all. -
Jan 26, 20181
willows posted a message on Crescendo [An Innovative Keyword Concept]So the main problem you're running into here is that there's an amount of mechanical explicitness that's conventional in MTG rules text, and a different amount in reminder text, and you have entirely failed to match your proposal to the convention.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
The reason that everyone's suggesting using named counters is twofold:
- There are not unnamed counters in MTG.
- Naming counters has important rules significance. (Examine proliferate, Gilder Bairn)
Then there's "Use a counter to keep track."
That's not conventional. The reason for this is that MTG never requires you to make a decision about how persistent information is tracked. Under your direction I could use a single counter and change its name every turn "This turn it's a two counter and that's how many times abilities are supposed to repeat," or maybe I could use multiple counters and use the number of counters to track the value? We don't know! There could be disagreements during games because there's no procedure given so players can fail to have matching interpretations of the board state. This is not remotely acceptable.
Then there's the past where clearly you don't even understand your own card text well enough to realize that e.g. Charity Bank is actually going to give each opponent 60 life when you sacrifice it, which can't possibly be the intended result (because it's absurd.) If you want to use multiple triggered abilities on a card and only scale one, there are ways to do it that actually work, see below.
Piggy Bank 3
Artifact (U)
Fatten (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a fat counter on this.)
T: Add to your mana pool X white mana, where X is equal to one plus the number of fat counters on Piggy Bank.
At the beginning of your end step, if Piggy Bank has three fat counters on it, sacrifice it and each opponent gains 5 life.
Ways in which this card is improved compared to OP version:
- Funnier name
- Rarity
- There are explicit, unambiguous ways to track its persistent information
- It dispenses with unnecessary use of long-term floating mana, which otherwise would generate another needless tracking problem
- Removes the bizarre triggered mana generation ability in favor of normal mana generation
- Sacrifice trigger isn't duplicated senselessly
- Balance changes
When you argue for a change in convention, you should take care to think it through and ask yourself, why does the convention work the way it does? Is the change I'm proposing an improvement to that functionality or a detriment? I think you'll find that in this community, a change to convention that's strictly detrimental is not going to be well-accepted and you can avoid trainwrecks like this thread in the future by self-editing to a small extent.
EDIT: It occurs to me that you can implement the Piggy Bank design quite effectively using fading/vanishing as long as you're willing to use subtraction in card text -
Jan 9, 2018
2
void_nothing posted a message on CCL December Final PollThat's all she wrote! It's now January 10 (in GMT) and our decisive winner is IcariiFA. Congrats!Posted in: Monthly Contests Archive -
Jan 15, 20181
ManyCookies posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion ThreadCurrent challenge is looking oddly appropriate in light of the recent mono-red standard bannings.Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games -
Jan 9, 20182
kjsharp posted a message on CCL December Final Pollsure, just give me a few days.Posted in: Monthly Contests Archive -
Jan 9, 20181
Flatline posted a message on CCL December Final PollHere you go....Posted in: Monthly Contests Archive
Karak, Valley of the Wandering - This card is very cool. I worry a bit about the last ability in EDH, but it's probably fine. It certainly would go nicely with Nivynerral's Disc. Awesome work.I'd be happy to have further discussion on my thoughts if you'd like. That's kinda why I figured a PM might be the way to go.
Teferi Reignited - Teferi regaining his spark would certainly be cool (and inevitable, IMO). I would think he would have more to do with time than your card portrays though. The flash ability does have a bit of time flavor to it, and it is one of the aspects of his creature card, so the first ability makes sense for him. The middle ability doesn't scream Teferi to me, and the last ability seems too strong. If it goes off, you pretty much win the game. That seems a bit strong for 6 loyalty on a 4 CMC, 4 starting loyalty walker. The fact that the +1 ability doesn't protect him on its own helps offset this a bit, but I still think the last ability is too strong as is. Assuming the card was toned down a bit, I think this is a nice blue 'walker, but I'm just not sure would be Teferi.
Luba, the Awakener - A Bear commander just doesn't excite me much. It could be because there just haven't really been any exciting bears over the years. The eminence ability would be really strong if there were enough bears in the deck, possibly too strong. The tie-in between the two abilities seems a bit weird at first because generally you're going to put a +1/+1 on each of your bears right before you cast Luba, but I suppose it works to combat against blink abuse, which is probably a pretty good idea. Also, shouldn't the last ability be "....., create a 2/2 green Bear for each Bear you control with a +1/+1 counter on it"?
Lorilldris, Malady Weaver - Signature spell is a cool idea, but I'm wondering what the other signature spells would be. It seems like curse would be a lot worse than say, creature, or enchantment, if for no other reason, there are just a lot more of them to choose from (curses are enchantments after all). I suppose you could make the other signature spells Trap, Arcane, and Human (or some other creature type), but there aren't a lot of options beyond that that I can think of. Anyway, assuming there was a cool way to balance the signature spells.....I'm not sure why this is an Elf. The way it's flavored, I really want this to be a UBR Vampire or Human Wizard. Other than that minor quibble (and assuming signature spell could be properly balanced), I quite like Lorilldris.
Conjoined Power - This is a very nice common. I really like the flavor the ability brings to mind, which is tied in rather nicely with the name and flavor text. I feel all the 2's on the card help with this as well. Excellent job. -
Jan 9, 2018
1
Flatline posted a message on CCL December Final PollCongrats to IcarriFA on another CCL victory, and on an overall stellar year. Awesome work! I really thought I'd give you a run for your money, but alas, it wasn't even all that close. I'd be curious to know where my cards fell short. For instance, I'd love to know which of my entries kjsharp felt was a bust. On that note, I wrote up some quick crits for IcariiFA's cards. @IcariiFA....Would you prefer I PM you my thoughts on your cards, or should I just post them here? At this point, it would probably make more sense to PM them to you. I didn't want to post them while the voting was still going on for fear of influencing people's votes.Posted in: Monthly Contests Archive -
Jan 5, 20183
Raptorchan posted a message on January MCC Judge Sign Up ThreadsMy creativity is far below zero this month. Count on me.Posted in: Monthly Contests Archive - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2
January CCL 2018 Finals Poll - VOTE NOW!
Welcome to the Card Creation League! Vote on which finalist did the best job with the challenge Feel free to critique the cards as you vote!
Challenge
Entries
Due to the mana symbol error occurring on the forums, the proper cost of our finalist submissions have been phased out. To see the proper cost of each card, please refer to the their original postings here.
1
bravelion83: 23 + 21.5 + 21 = 65.5
Forestsguy: 18.5 + 16.5 + 16.5 = 51.5
kjsharp: 18.5 + 20 + 17 = 55.5
We have a winner - Bravelion83, congrats on being the first winner of 2018!
Until next time!
1
2
After having taken the test, I felt a little anxious but confident that if it was scored like the last one that I was gaurenteed in. Even if they made it twice as strict I would of been in. But instead of a 12% margin of error they cut it to 3%. I got 71 out of 75.
The difference between who is a better designer is not decided by 3 trick questions or questions about they're new design/development team jobs, it's about their understanding of fun, the fundamentals of the actual games design, and the creativity to think a bit differently then the people already working there.
I'm angry at the unreasonably high standard on this test that is being used to eliminate many great candidates who have great ideas and aiding the ones who meticulous follow podcast and tiny details. Those are the people who only know magic, and in the end will not add much to the game. I'm also angry at myself for not doing better on the two questions that would of made the cut.
I know how to compete at card design. I would of kicked arse.
1
Happy new year!
3
What crescendo tries to achieve is overly complicated. As is, referencing triggered abilities makes it impossible to print at common, and that's before you get to the wall of text involved in making the narrative concept of a "crescendo" work. Your idea is not a keyword ability. It really should just be a one of card, perhaps a single cycle at most at a higher rarity. The complexity here isn't worth it.
You state also state in your OP that the most important thing about your mechanic is how it challenges designers/developers. That is just the wrong way to prioritize anything about MTG. The game is about fun, and mechanics that express exciting, flavorful ideas into the game that have depth and go beyond their first read. Lenticular. But the main point is players having fun. Not challenging designers to make narrow, complicated cards.
Willows solution (disregarding the unset flavor) is much closer to where this mechanic wants to be. It cleans up the wording to be contemporary and have proper triggers while making the card much easier to understand. However it still reflects a high complexity card and a very strict design space.
I can certainly commend the concept of wanting to capture the idea of a crescendo mechanically into a keyword, but this isn't it. Stict to a couple cards with the cresendo idea and nix keywording it. Don't make it the focus of a set/block.
1
1
My answers were similar, except I suggested convoke as an evergreen mechanic (mass appeal, promotes/rewards playing creatures, etc) and while I agree with color pie being magics greatest strength, I focused on the identity it created for the game and players.
I would be happy to share my answer to question ten, but lets just say it involves supertypes and inspired my challenge for the latest CCL round, and I don't want to divulge what I suggested until my players have all submitted cards for the deadlines ;).
1
1
January CCL 2018 Top 4 - Super, SUPER New!
Welcome to the Card Creation League! This round is for the top 4 only! Feel free to watch and comment in the CCL discussion thread!
Out Top 4:
kjsharp
willows
Flatline
Hemlock
Theme
It's a brand new year, so everything this month will require you to do something new! Start those resolutions and get ready, because you'll have to wind your gears around for that fresh take on card design!
Challenge
PLEASE NOTE: This month will continue the use of the "Mandatory Top 3 Rule." For this month, you must submit a Top 3 during a round's critique period in order to receive any points for the round. Submitting critiques as well will be worth 2 bonus points in the round.
Schedule